Why Einstein Thought Nuclear Weapons Were Impossible
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 апр 2018
- Without neutrons, harnessing nuclear energy would be impossible.
Try Audible free for 30 days: audible.com/veritasium
I have a new documentary coming out in a few months - sign up here to be notified and see a sneak preview: vitamaniathemovie.com
Special thanks to Patreon supporters:
Tony Fadell, Donal Botkin, Michael Krugman, Jeff Straathof, Zach Mueller, Ron Neal, Nathan Hansen, Yildiz Kabaran,
Terrance Snow
A few years ago I made a documentary about uranium, radioactivity and radiation. I always thought of the characters in our story as the scientists and maybe the uranium nucleus itself. It was only through making the documentary that I realized the real hero of the story is the neutron. Without a neutral nuclear particle, it would be virtually impossible to release the energy from the nucleus. But with it, and the idea of a chain reaction, nuclear energy went from science fiction to reality. That is something I had not grasped as clearly before and it motivated me to make this video.
Filmed by Raquel Nuno.
"Damn"
- Albert Einstein
No I didn’t said That 😁
@@classified4798 lol
🤣 🤣
Yeah and just imagine what the world would be like today without these capabilities. OH MY GOD.
@@elijahflynt3217 full of chaos
The Sci-Fi writer: "They called me a mad man."
What I predicted came to pass
A perpetual radioactive bomb active for years still doesnt exis... oh wait thats Chernobyl
True story: Before his death in 1946, he dictated his epitaph should read "I told you so, you damned fools."
The Scientist: "They called me a Sci-Fi man."
I'm still holding out hope that the guy who first wrote about hyperdrives gets similarly vindicated.
It's crazy how quickly it developed. The neutron was discovered in 1932. Thirteen years later, you had atomic bombs dropped on two cities.
Shows what humans really care about
Based🗿
@@captainplane398 war drives technological progress more than anything else
@@valerierodgerSo we need more war
It also shows how far away technologies that are '15 years away' actually are...
Neutron is neither hero, nor a villain, it is truly in its essence, neutral
what makes a particle turn neutral? lust for gold? power?
@@calipoxcalipso partical thinks it's apolitical.
@@calipoxcalipsoor is born with with a heart full of neutrality?
“The longest supporter of this channel: Audible”
his first patreon supporter:
try commenting on a more recent video next time
@@impazie no
@@54phoules85 madlad
longest, not first. his first patreon probably stopped donating by now. but yeah
@@impazie Try not commenting at all next time
"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." -Arthur C. Clarke
Thanks. I didn't have time to track down the quote. Very relevant to this video...
great quote :D
Saying that the speed of light is possible will likely be wrong
@@20502chris Do you mean TRAVELING AT the speed of light? Because light having a speed is certainly possible. Anything that moves has a speed at which it moves, and light is never stationary as far as we know...though it travels at different speeds depending on the medium.
@@NLTops Everyone know what you mean when you say "speed of light". And if you want to be pedantic, you should not be making mistakes yourself. The speed of light is constant and it doesn't slow down inside of a "medium", it just has more distance to cover.
The issue is obviously that from what we can tell, the universe has a speed limit and we'd like to break it.
One factual error: it’s actually easy to keep a nuclear reactor operating at a steady level of power. The physics involved make reactors self-stabilizing. It’s not a matter of balancing on a knife’s edge; it’s a matter of getting into and staying in a deep rut. Making a nuclear weapon is far harder than making a nuclear reactor; you have to overcome those factors by creating a combination of unnatural conditions with a hundredth-of-a-millionth-of-a-second precision timing.
Nuclear reactors cannot explode like nuclear weapons can. Worst case, they can spike in heat and cause a much smaller chemical or steam explosion.
Interesting, I still find using all nuclear devices balancing on a knifes edge, but the clarity is appreciated.
@@naleck2922 But it's not. It's literally impossible. A uranium fuel rod cannot become a bomb even if you try.
Proof at work: Fuel rods are sold to any country anywhere and given to power companies. Because no matter what, it cannot be turned into a bomb.
@@naleck2922 at this point in time, it’s better to just not do that
My 2 cents: yes, nuclear reactors can be made in such a way that, even if a supercritical state can be reached, it is not sustained for very long, preventing core melting or explosions from happening. However, not all reactors are built that way (Chernobyl's one wasn't), for cost-effectiveness or whatever reason.
@@leogama3422And yet that reactor didn't explode because of the nuclear reaction, but rather the superheated gases that blew off the 40 ton cement ceiling of chamber number 4
I love how great discoveries are made just leaving stuff around
Imagine what the earth would be like if humans never mined it for materials other then the basic material like water,wood, food.
They're not all good discoveries. But, I feel ya... I need to clean the place... sigh...
@@fallenwolf3368 we wouldn't have much of our modern technologies, or just have technologies that are drastically different from now. That would be interesting to see, we wouldn't have tools or technologies that require those but we could have made alternatives that may be as useful. Thank you for the idea.
@@fallenwolf3368Not really good. Aint no way you could make a computer out of wood though...
Imagine throwing uranium in your drawer next to your keys.
The decay chain is mostly alpha and beta decay, you''d be fine.
@@Karrethlol, sure. Constant extra exposure should be fine.
Wolf Davis It is fine. A lot of things emit alpha and beta particles in their decay chain. Just to explain to you why, it is because alpha bad beta particles are to large, they get stopped by molecules in air lol, even if they pass through the air, they will still get blocked by your skin.
@@Karreth well beta particles are electrons... So you might get a minor electric shock if it falls on your metal keys right ?
Tldr: Don't worry about the electric shock, there is not nearly enough electricity there, let alone a good way to harvest it.
Say it was just U 238 ore, and it went down the decay chain as normal. It would emit alpha/beta particles during its lifespan, eventually becoming lead. All the beta particles would be β-, and be coming from elements down the decay chain like Th, Po, Hg, and Bi. So now we have a bunch of α and β- particles being emitted, why wouldn't I get an electric shock?
Well, there aren't nearly enough "electrons" present for this in the first place, so that's our first bottleneck. The second reason, and most important, is because they aren't flowing in a current. Imagine electricity as water in a bucket, being poured down a tube. This tube would be the path, like wires for example, and the water would be the electrons. The motion of the water going down the tube would be the electricity itself, and we could measure the 'current' of it based on how fast its moving.
Now imagine a waterwheel at the end of this tube, with blades that spin when water hits it. If the tube has a good current, the blades are going to spin faster. If it has a slow current, it is going to spin slower, (if the tube is a constant size.). This is electricity, flowing, and doing work. Great!
In radiation decay of β-, there is water e.g. electrons, but the problem is that there's not really a tube. We just have a bucket of water, its "evaporating" away at a given half life, becoming a cloud, and then raining. There may be the same mount of water, but its doing very little work to the water wheel, as its just kind of bombarding everything. Instead of being put through a tube and directed at the fans of this waterwheel, its going everywhere. This is what β- radiation would look like in this analogy. Yes, it will hit your keys, but it wont shock you. There is not really a current.
If you wanted to look into this more, and you read this far, I strongly recomend you look into betavoltaics, and other radiation based batteries. They are really cool, even though they aren't the strongest batteries.
Step 1: become a scientist
Step 2: say space travel isn't possible
Step 3: wait 20 years
Step 4:??
Step:5 profit
Ima do it
**time travel
Step 4 is invent time travel
how would u profit off THAT I would stick with the lottery! Lmao
Stonks
very clear explanation... well done in explaining a complex topic so that people who aren't in that particular field of science/engineering can understand
man someone should make a movie about this
Important thing to remember, sometimes even brilliant scientists are completely wrong, but they are always proven wrong by people who are also experts in the field, not random keyboard warriors.
At least the scientists willing to accept and learn new idea despite contradicting their old uninformed opinions, unlike the keyboard warriors.
EmperorFaiz untrue, as history reveals the opposite to also sometimes be the case
Einstein was the equivalent of a "keyboard warrior" in his day, writing countless letters as an amateur physicist to whomever he thought would listen, its this extremely limited and conceited attitude about who can add value to a discussion and who cant that makes asses like you in the field just wrongheaded and insufferable.
@@nancybabbage1169 Einstein already had the equivalent of a bachelor's in math/physics before he started working at the patent office, that doesn't really count as ameteur and it's certainly a lot more than your average keyboard warrior.
I mean, im pretty sure all scientists are humans and humans make mistakes
6:04
...the neutron is the hero.. or the villain.
No, i think he is neither, he is quite neutral.
(sorry, bad joke)
Chaotic neutral
I get it
Shame on you
🤣
Lmao
He knew the spoilers of Oppenheimer...5 years back
Imagine how wild Einstein mind would go if he saw our technological capabilities today.
i think his brain is in a jar somewhere so we might still be able to show him
He'd be amazed that we used his General Theory of Relativity to build GPS. I doubt he ever suspected there'd be an application for which the time dilation caused by the Earth's gravity and the velocity of a satellite in orbit around the Earth would be relevant to the results, but GPS requires such extreme precision in clocks that it would be completely useless without an understanding of General Relativity (i.e., it would develop errors of several kilometers per day).
@@andrewpatton5114 There were frequent train crashes in Europe because of time imbalance. Einstein was curious about it and maybe contributed to his GR
I think his mind went wild when he witnessed end of WW2, since he argued that nuclear weapons are impossible to build
@@Pmpeak He never said they were impossible, he said that there was no evidence at the time to suggest that they would ever be possible. Two completely different things.
Word to the wise, never be the person quoted as saying something can’t be done haha.
This is the truest fact ever.
Uh oh I did
unless you're Einstein in which case it doesn't affect your credibility one bit because your net credibility is so high
2020 can't get any worse, quote me on that 👌
@@mikmorpheus if you live here in Vegas, 2021 will absolutely be worse. We have zero conferences for the year and that's wear a 3rd of our budget comes from. Casinos are down about 80%, and gambling is another 3rd of our budget. So 2/3 down with no way to bring money in 2021 is gonna suck... Don't know If you seen the news but people are getting shot and beat up right on the Vegas Strip. It's so bad some hotels won't even let you enter unless you have a room or dinner reservations.
When Charlie Chaplin met Albert Einstein, Albert said "What I most admire about your art, is your universality. You don't say a word, yet the world understands you"
Chaplin: 'True. But your glory is even greater! The whole world admires you, even though they don't understand a word of what you say
Lol
that may not have happenned but it is funny
@@fredtherndmrtpstr5052 that happened. In reality it happened
@@varadleleot2084 oh it did? Well, fantastic!
@@varadleleot2084 That happened in a reality that's inside your head, yes. Not in the actual reality
This is the exact explanation i was looking for, thank you!
Excellent. So much I didn't know in this video.I met Szilard's wife Trudy in La Jolla in the early 1970s. I didn't realize how brilliant Szilard was until later and have been kicking myself ever since for not talking to Trudy about him.
“People really should stop misquoting me” Albert Einstein
"Ok boomer"
-Albert Einstein
"People should no longer be saying 'ok boomer' as it is a long dead not funny joke"
-Albert Einstein
@@evalaisserant2070 “Replying Ok Boomer is the ultimate burn, no matter the circumstance.” - Albert Einstein
“Eh” -Albert Einstein
"Durrrrrr, I'm a Fizzacyst" -Albert Einstein
Scientists : "YOU CANT DO THAT!"
Also scientists : "Look just did it lol "
That same about global warming a fake news.
CRISPR on humans in a nutshell
@@WadcaWymiaru i'm not sure if you're saying global warming is fake news or not
Global warming IS fake...
Władca Wymiaru
You can call it fake, but even Exxon (an oil company) KNEW way before the government, by doing their own scientific research.
Watching this after watching his latest video about Oppenheimer shows how much his work has improved! Amazing job!
Excellent explanation of the neutron and the chain reaction . .
Short answer: neutron had not been found yet when he said that.
yeah, Einstein obviously kept up with science and the evidence changed his mind later on.
Underrated
Einstein's quote is from 1934, two years after the discovery of the neutron
It took him another five years to catch up to reality and change his opinion
@@347Jimmy coz the nuetron was yet to be studied.scientists only new it existed but it took time to figure out how it interacted
@@apostle9209 Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch had worked out that nuclear weapons were feasible by 1938
Einstein was still on the wrong side of the discussion at the time
Albert was able to admit that he was wrong, it amazes me that people on RUclips are unable to do the same
Leo Szilard: *crosses a street*
Leo Szilard thinking to himself: "If i can find an element which is split by neutrons and emit 2 neutrons when hit 1 neutron then such an element assembled in sufficiently large mass could sustain a nuclear reaction "
i don’t understand the point of this comment. Your just repeating the video??
@@devin6272 What exactly don't you get?
@@devin6272 situational humor
@@devin6272 The joke is that not many people have such thoughts while crossing the street. Your average 1900s citizens mostly had thoughts about how it's amazing that the Bifurcation Diagram from the Logistic Map appears in the Mandelbrot set in perfect correspondence with the ratio calculated from Feigenbaum's constant, when one is a geographical representation of iterative stability while the other is a polynomial mapping showing how chaotic behaviour can arise from simple non-linear dynamical equations... and to think that this Leo Szilard guy was only thinking about splitting atoms... pfft.
Me: *crosses a street*
Me thinking to myself: "If I mixed mayonnaise with barbecue sauce, would that be absolutely disgusting or not?"
Well-stated. A very simple explanation of a very difficult concept.
Well, this is surprisingly relevant today
relevant because Einstein is still right about nuclear weapons
@@gregcandy8900
@@ct92404 amazing how fast you resorted to lying about what I believe LMAOOO do you even have internal monologue?
@@gregcandy8900 You conspiracy theorist nuts are all the same.
@@ct92404 I'd say we should have a debate but I already know you're too much of a coward seeing as you're not even replying to comments from your main channel LOL
"The fission of a single Uranium atom releases 20 times less energy than the amount required to raise a grain of sand the thickness of a piece of paper" - that's still a pretty impressive amount of energy tbh considering how small atoms are
especially how many are in a grain of sand
Exactly. I had to stop in awe to process that. Incredible. There are 10^19 atoms in a grain of sand, so just a tiny fraction of them could power-lift the whole thing basically to any height, including shooting it to the Moon (for that, burning just one millionth of it, roughly).
He said its much fore the size of an atom.but not much for the human world
@@lunakid12 Thanks for doing the math! I was curious, but don't have time now to check myself ;)
Nuclear fusion: *I’m gonna do what’s called a pro gamer move*
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible"
~Lord Kelvin, 1895
Wright Brothers, 1903: Ferb, I know what we're gonna do today.
He had to be dumb to say that because birds, bats are heavier than air
Santos Drumont few years before Wright brothers: Done!
@@yaptchannel You mean after. Wright Bros flew in 1903. Santos-Dumont in 1906.
Such a silly thing to say for such a smart man. Has he not heard of birds ?
@@dLimboStick Actually, i know u guys from USA are convinced that Wright Bros did it first. But as a brazillian, everyone I know, includding history teachers and others important people too, said it was Santos-Dumont. Actually there is more proof for Santos-Dumont side of story, but we can't really tell if Wright Bros didn't get it first... Well, if u ask anyone here in Brazil, they all agree it was Santos, I don't sutudied it deeper, so if u ask me, i would say Santos-Dumont too, but, i won't deny that Wright Bros could have a chance of winning this race. Well, actually u can believe in who ever u want, i just gonna choose my county side of the story, cus I believe in it. And at this point, I don't know if somebody has discovered who actually did it (not theory, but facts and proof that 100% shows it), anyway, nice day dude
Thanks for the knowledge
Very nicely explained.
Thank you
A proton, a neutron, and helium walk into a bar and order three beers.
The bartender appears with 3 beers and asks the proton, “Are you sure you’re over 21?” The proton replies, “I’m positive.” So the bartender gives him the first beer.
He gives the second beer to the neutron and says, “For you, no charge.”
He throws the third beer in helium’s face. Helium doesn’t react.
Was the electron left behind because it was a negative Nancy?
It's copypaste from other chemistry jokes put together
Helium is such an alpha.
@@WaveOfDestiny if I haven't seen it it's new to me.
Racist bartender..
Imagine if that dude never put the rock in the drawer
What's up checkmark
Someone else would have.... history is full of multiple people coming up with the same experiment/solution at around the same times.
@@gps9715 I think the point they're trying to make is: What if that particular man hadn't done that, and no-one thought of it until like... 10 years later, 20 or even more. How different the world would be now if that were the case.
@@HazySkies Yeah I don't think so. I mean he uses "never" to define his timeframe. 😉
The discovery would have been delayed. But eventually be discovered anyways.
Its not nearly so much a knife's edge as you make it out to be with regards to a fission reactor. Individual fuel pieces are large enough to generate enough neutrons such that, if you absorb a little fewer of them, the reaction gets back to where you want it with some ease. If anything, absorbing too many neutrons just reduces power output.
Thanks for the Becquerel exposure anecdote. It's crazy how certain discoveries might have been postponed if circumstances had not caused unintended experiments
Nuclear fission is sort of like balancing on a knife’s edge, as you put it. However, for anyone who doesn’t have a good understanding of nuclear power generation, its important to point out that in the case of a reactor core, this seemingly terrifying “knife’s edge”, where too many neutrons can cause a nuclear explosion, isn’t actually possible. There are two main reasons for this;
1) Fuel-grade Uranium is nowhere near enriched enough to sustain a runaway supercritical nuclear reaction that results in a nuclear explosion. Weapons-grade Uranium must be enriched to about 90% U-235 for a bomb to be possible. Fuel-grade Uranium is only enriched to around 3% U-235. Therefore, there just aren’t enough fissionable nuclei present in a fuel rod for this to occur.
2) Nuclear fuel rods, by virtue of being shaped as elongated rods, have way too much surface area for neutrons to escape the fissile material before triggering too many more fissions. For this very reason, a bomb core has to be a near-perfect sphere in order for it to actually work (in addition to being above the supercritical mass for the Uranium or Plutonium used). So even if the Uranium in a reactor core were weapons-grade (it never would be), and even if the neutrons were perfectly moderated (slowed down to maximize the probability of triggering more fissions, and hence releasing more neutrons), the fact that the fuel rods are rods completely ruins any possibility of the core ever acting as a bomb (and thankfully so!).
Anyway, I just thought I’d add this information just so that nobody gets the false idea that the knife’s edge analogy means that nuclear power reactors are just one mistake away from being a potential nuke, which is impossible.
DUDE THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS COMMENT
I was about to say THE SAME DAMN THING and you saved me some time so thanks!
People manufacture false dichotomies from statements all the time and I am glad that someone else saw this too, especially in a time of anti-nuclear fission sentiment.
Thanks. I had the strong suspicion that a nuclear reactor doesn't simply turn into a bomb, for a few reasons, but you actually explained why.
You have allayed my fears, which was Chernobyl of you to do.
What about other radioactive materials, like Thorium? I've heard that they're better for nuclear power plants, but could you explain why?
@@NitroNinja324 thorium is more common on earth than uranium and is less radioactive over long periods of time. it also is a "slow-neutron breeder" which means it can use slow-moving neutrons to create more fissile material by decaying into other fissile elements (as opposed to uranium, which breeds with fast neutrons into plutonium after several other steps, which is highly dangerous and has an extremely long half-life). because it requires slow neutrons to breed also means that the richness of the material can be lower to produce similar energy levels, extending the lifetime of the material on earth
Time travel
Not gonna Happen
2358
Time travel is prohibited
Unlikely that anyone would even attempt time travel, due to the literal mountain of problems that come with it.
Things like paradoxes which are basically equal to self destruct buttons for the universe and time itself, or the even worst unknown probabilities/properties waiting to be discovered that came with a giant DEATH FLAG.
So yeah, if time travel does get discovered, it would be guarded harder than a black hole hides it's own mass.
Time travel to the past is most likely not possible. This isn’t the same situation as was raised by Einstein’s however. Time travel to the past isn’t an engineering issue like splitting the atom was, but more of a fundamental issue in physics. Time travel to the future is definitely possible and has been observed many times
I'm traveling through time on a daily basis. About 24 hours into the future every day.
@@alonelyperson6031 Good thoughts-- but if you're going to go Kamikaze (as one does), then Time Travel is the most exotic way to do that, at the very least. Someone is DEFINITELY going to attempt time travel.
@@reidchave7192 Then they must be stopped no matter the cost.
Watching this after watching Oppenheimer
here after oppemheimer
It's mind boggling to think Einstein published the general theory of relativity before the discovery of neutrons.
That’s the beauty of it all, how things relate to each other before the discovery of other relevant ideas. It’s amazing honestly. That’s a testament to the near infallibility of the scientific method if practiced to the absolute best of ones ability
why is that? also, Relativity did not start with Einstein, it had been under development for years/decades by other scientists/mathematicians when he published his paper (and whom Einstein failed to acknowledge) and which (incidentally) did NOT win him the Nobel Prize, a common misconception
@@MegaMaxiepad Einstein did acknowledge quite a few people actually such as Maxwell, Lorentz and many others. You can't name everyone but he definitely acknowledged the idea that his work would not would have been possible without the previous work of those that came before him.
@@alaididnalid7660 Einstein was a fraud plagiarist.
@@Dopaaamine27 He admitted being influenced by other scientists but he gave new meaning to previous work and contributed quite a bit during his lifetime. Such influence is very common when making any scientific contribution. If you're tired of people saying he is "the best scientist/physicist", I fully get that. I feel that many other scientists and physicists may be underrated because of Einstein hysteria. I haven't done the math but I have spent 2 years to understand how time ticks at different rates depending on context (place, speed and in the case of GR, curvature/gravity) while all events remain consistent nonetheless. That very notion was brand new at the time and relevant for both GR and SR.
I did a bit of simple math when it comes to special relativity but while I grasp general relativity in a more intuitive way, I have not done the math but I do understand to some extent why the calculations are way more complicated.
When it comes to plagiarism: wasn't he the first to state that something that has mass inherently has energy? Saying he had zero original contribution is simply false.
isn’t it crazy that this whole “atom” and science knowledge is still new. Imagine in 100 years how much we evolved with knowledge.
No, it's not new
Yeah it's a conveniently forgotten fact. You can't praise any human being that was objectively influential before 100 years ago because hurr durr misogyny and slavery and bigots.
@@vibaj16 atoms were thought of in Ancient Greece but there was no way to testify or experiment these things. Atomic science is new.
@@hybmnzz2658 I'd say new means within the past decade, not century
@@vibaj16 then obviously you enjoy being ignorant about the time a century takes as compared to humankind’s entire history.
Love the videos. Have you thought about doing a video on thorium reactors or liquid salt breader reactors?
Who’s here after Oppenheimer and Veritasium’s video about it?
6:10 "Hey Vsauce here"
Uranium protecc
Uranium atacc
But most importantly, uranium shine uv light bacc
Oh yeah
depp
Absorb uv and shine visible light back
pee sweezy spitting facts
Underrated comment
Excellent explanation
Funny that this video gets recommended right before I want to watch Oppenheimer
Wow, and to think (I believe) all of the people whose quotes were featured were still around just over 10 years later when all of that became absolutely possible, and most saw it become used in power plants as well!
Micah Yeah that's very cool. It's not often we see such things. Maybe we'll see something similar with dark matter.
Sebastian Stop with the B/S. You've absolutely know idea what will happen in the dark matter area - because no one does. You may be right. But if so it's just blind luck. Not very impressive.
Much more likely something will happen with dark energy instead. Dark matter seems to be just matter but dark energy (much like mysteriously radiating rocks) SEEMS to violate the law of conservation of energy.
justsomeguy, no, I meant they saw it be harnessed during WWII in the form of bombs, and most (I don't know exactly if any died in the meantime) saw it even be used as a power plant.
MrRolnicek Yes that's possible. While this is not my field, I try to follow along. Dark matter may turn out to be WIMPS or something much like it. My point is that this is not known yet. Darkside is not entirely clear in its results best I can see. Nor has it been replicated. The rest is hypothesizing.
Rocks are my field and I get your reference about mysterious radiation. I would love for either dark (side) phenomena to result in something similar - in my lifetime.
Woah man, I don't see your videos often these days. The last time I binge-watched your videos was about 3.5 years ago, you were the reason I got very passionate into Science and Engineering. I even experimented making few science videos, inspired by your zeal. I got into engineering now. And I'm gonna graduate in a few weeks. Thanks for being there at the beginning of my journey, although I didn't get into pure sciences, you were the reason for my curiosity. I'm graduating as a proud engineer now.
Your passion will continue to motivate me and I will probably make videos on Engineering in the future.
That's awesome, man! Congratulations. I hope Derek sees your comment!
Dayum, dude, that's marvelous! Good luck with your future projects.
Egor Gorshenin Thanks a lot man! Have a good day.
That's awesome! Congrats!
Lianne Dekker Thank you!
Einstein probably knew Barbienheimer was coming.
Went back to this vid after watching the Oppenheimer one. Spot on explanation as always (almost same with the 2023 version for the nuclear reaction but with better graphics).
Humans: discover nuclear energy,
Also humans: let's use it to destroy ourselves
*lets use it to destroy other people*
Yes but it can not be denied that n bombs have prevented large wars between countries for decades.
Mutually assured destruction prevents wars
@@exponentialcomplexity3051 yes they have
@@exponentialcomplexity3051 hope it remains that way
why not tho, war crimes are so stylish
Not gonna happen.
_happens._
woops
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." ~Carl Sagan
superj1e2z6 haha
Lipid, Gotta love a good bit of Carl Sagan - that man had some really great thoughts, and even though the quote you gave might seem silly to some people it's a good reminder!
They laughed at Tesla, Hannes Alfven, Halton Arp and they still are, in a century full of junk science and a completely wrong cosmological understanding.
Much to learn they have.
We like to remember bad predictions by people who aught to know better. We don't bother to remember the good predictions by the knowledgable or any prediction by idiots.
The key to sustained, stable chain reactions is the fact that some of the fission neutrons generated are delayed by as much as a few milliseconds. That transforms the "knife edge balance" problem into a trivial control problem. Well, that and the design of the reactor to only achieve criticality with thermal neutrons, i.e. neutrons moving as slowly as a hydrogen atom at room temperature. The probability of a neutron causing a fission is maximum at such low energy, and drops dramatically with increasing neutron energy. So reactors have to employ a moderator, to slow down the fission neutrons - something like hydrogen (as in water) or carbon (as in graphite). It's best not to use both, or you get a Chernobyl situation, just FYI.
Great job explaining that just watched Where is oppenheimr
Where can I mine some uranium 235? Asking for a friend.
You spelled butthole wrong the first time lol. You fuckin douche.
What it use for?
If you get some be prepared to be hunted by the cia
JoeCoolMusic 235 is actually fairly simple to make... from thorium
@@SuperVstech dude ur getting everyone on this comment in trouble, seriosly. Btw. You added a thing to my to do list
"The world is moving so fast these days that a man who says something is not possible is usually interrupted by someone doing it."...
The world has also become a place where belief rules over knowledge... so it probably won’t stop that man from saying it’s not possible, even if someone does it right in front of him.
@@donalain69 yes, I guess u r right
@@donalain69 Humans are slowly turning into WH40K orks.
We da wagghhiest and da shootiest.
Forbiden knowlegde from fallen angels
Though, Einstein himself said it's impossible, and then immediately did it (he worked at the Manhattan Project)
Plot twist: He knew it was possible and wanted to discourage people from figuring it out.
Wow...someone I respect recommends a book I've already read.... that makes me so chuffed. And it really is a fascinating read.
I feel like your comment on nuclear power plants becoming unstable due to absorbing too few neutrons, while true, is misleading in that you mentioned the explosion at Chernobyl after talking about nuclear bombs. The explosion at Chernobyl was not a nuclear one. A nuclear power plant (even a poorly designed one like Chernobyl) just doesn't have uranium in a dense enough formation to make that happen. The explosion at Chernobyl was actually caused when the balance you were talking about caused a rapid buildup of steam pressure which ruptured the reactor and spread fuel and fission products into the atmosphere.
It saddens me to see the misconception "Nuclear power plants are unsafe because they can become a nuclear bomb." being spread anywhere and I like to do what I can to stop it. Nuclear power is statistically the safest, and most efficient, form of energy by far, and its arguably the cleanest form of energy production as well. Unfortunately we wont use it because we are afraid of it due to wrong and outdated information and misconceptions.
I've been a subscriber to your channel for years now and love all of the content you put out. You do a fantastic job of teaching people about science, and the universe around us. Thanks for doing what you do, I am always looking forward to you're next video.
What happened at Chernobyl was no less than a nuclear catastrophe. Irrespective of the cause, the effect was ten times that of Hiroshima, and it wouldn't have happened if it weren't a 'nuclear' plant. So directly or indirectly, his statement is right. Nuclear plants are nuclear bombs ready to be triggered any time thanks to human error.
I was looking for this comment 👍
@@sherryhere8498 no, they really aren't nuclear bombs. If you were commenting on pewdiepie's channel, the misconception could be reasonable, but definitely not in this channel. The explosion wasn't nuclear, but thermal. And ofc, the radioactive uranium and fission products in the power plant lead to huge damage... But still not a nuclear bomb. In fact, there is a military weapon that acts similarly to that, they're called dirty bombs: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb . And as you can see, even if these ones are definitely designed as bombs, they make the clear distinction that they're not nuclear bombs.
I know it's Wikipedia, but they have an amazingly well explained text there:
@@studentsforademocraticsoci9836 after i eat taco bell, my farts are thermonuclear bombs
1920: "It's physically impossible to harness energy just from radioactive decay"
2020: "Alright, is the RTG ready for the next Mars rover?"
Good one! Perseverance is nearly ready to launch!
Too much astroneer going on here,
I never knew about RTG's before. Looked it up after reading this comment. Thank you.
@@alexeikafe5388 It made it!!!
@@iliketrains0pwned yes!
One of your best. I think almost anyone, even a 10YO with mediocre schooling, could understand the basis and basics of nuclear engineering. Thanks. and again.
Wow, this video just taught me the difference between how an atom bomb and a power plant works in less than a minute (at least, the easy explanation).
Genuinely great
I HAVE A SIMPLER EXPLANATION. NO SUCH THING AS ATOMIC WEAPONS. URANIUM AND PLUTONIUM ARE METALLIC ATOMS, WHICH CAN NEVER CAUSE AN EXPLOSION. ONLY CHEMICALS CAN CAUSE AN EXPLOSION. THATS WHY ANY NUKE EXPLOSION HAS ALL THAT DIRTY BLACK SMOKE. ITS ALL HUGE AMOUNTS OF TNT.
@@Guitarman7133 lol, good one
Neutron is a hero
Neutron is a villan
So, neutron is someone in between.
Neutron is NEUTRAL
Hence, prooved
Neutron is deadpool
@@Strumwith_aryan 🤣🤣 *CooL*
If you combine heroes with antiheroes, will they annihilate each other?
Neutron is hero
Neutron is villian
1/x at 0 is infinity and negative infinity, so is undefined.
Neutron is undefined.
Neutron is fake, nasa lied to us, space is a lie, Earth is flat.
Well, according to schrodinger neutron can be a hero and a villain at the same time...
Neutron was discovered by James Chadwick in 1932
_You should've said it. Helps us get the timeline_ 😁
Manoj Ravoori 3:24 he mentioned 1932 (but not chadwick)
Lol. I missed it. Short, well hidden and quick
He should've said it like at 2:25, 2:45 to help us - the attention handicapped 😁
So, Mr (Dr?). V: how about an episode on how the Neutron was discovered? That was left unexplained.
+Manoj Ravoori Why all the extra spaces?
Rick Munoz.
Discovery of neutron is interesting(perhaps every discovery is), though it might be too nerdy for general audience. It involved works of Rutherford; Bothe & Becker; Curie('s daughter) & Joliot; Chadwick & bit of others too(like Majorana, Feather).
ruclips.net/video/2bNdMzbIuzw/видео.html
Reminds me of Humanity's edge - its collective brain of millions/billions of thinkers(of language,maths,farming,science,record keepers,teachers,fiction writers,etc) over thousands of years, let free(from mere survival) by billions of common farmers, workers,engineers,doctors,etc.
Now, the Internet amplifies the network many times more :D
Einstein wrote to FDR warning him of the outcome of Fermi's discovery which pretty much shows he was well aware of the possibility of such a weapon.
I LOVE SCIENCE, so i wanna ask if you want Recommendations, but asking that repeatedly (to reach more people) is of course automatically risking that i seem like a robot, which makes people decline.
Leo Szilard penned the letter, with support from Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller. He persuaded Einstein to sign it to give it more weight. When Szilard and Wigner explained the risk of a nuclear chain reaction in Uranium using a neutron moderator that could be used as an atomic bomb on July 12 1939 Einstein commented "Daran habe ich gar nicht gedacht" ("I did not even think about that").
Who's here after oppenheimer?
"Is talking moonshine" aha! Can we talk like this again please?
3:14 Never having thought about it in that way, I think it is quite amazing that the energy from a single nuclear reaction is only an order of magnitude off from some vaguely "macroscopic" energy.
Very interesting!
Anyone seeking an overview of the intellectual history of how the physicists (with assists from a few key chemists) figured out (over the course of decades) everything necessary to construct the bomb should read Richard Rhodes The Making of the Atomic Bomb, which has a very detailed account. It includes accounts of such things as Fermi's construction of the first atomic pile (i.e. first primitive nuclear reactor) in Chicago, including discussions of how he ensured that it would operate enough, but not too much... Rhodes's book is a must read.
Notice how carefully Einstein put it: "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable". He spoke in the present tense about the current state of science in 1933. He did not pronounce it impossible like the others.
Yes, and “Veritasium” is using the word “impossible “ in his title which is not true and misleading
"will ever be" refers to the infinite future from the time of speech.
Lets not forget in Einsteins time science in general, every bit of information back then, was WAY less then today, and so he had a good point there aswell
@@alejandroenciso9650 its called click bait.
"Ever" clearly suggests that he is talking about the future, so no.
_That Vsauce pop-up at the end._
Andrew Kovnat reported for misleading comment :p
I can't tell if you're joking or not. If you aren't, let me try to convey to you what I meant.
Vsauce is known for popping up from the bottom of the screen during screen transitions, and near the conclusion of this video, good ol' Veritasium does the same, reminding me of Michael and his mischievous motions.
k
Where are your fingers ?
I know it’s been a year, but woooosh
If I can't do it, homie it can't be done
- Albert Einstein
So great 👍
"The World Set Free" is a good read as it's interesting to see a vision of the future that is now our past.
I studied biochemistry & chemistry at college, but decided that it wasn't a career I wanted to pursue. Your channel keeps me interested in the scientific field I love. I'm super grateful for this. Thanks, a secret science nerd.
Thanks!
I deeply admire this great human! One of the greatest explainers🤎! Those days were outstanding! God bless him abundantly with everything!
It's so refreshing seeing a somewhat advanced topic done so well and interesting.
It reminds me of your older videos that got me hooked on your channel
How true, sometimes the comment section after a video can be a very aggravating place to be.
Yeah it can be. Then a person could take it the wrong way. Too many different subjects to see on this thing.
I love how interesting these videos are. They make me think about everything that has ever happened and ever existed. It's a good feeling :)
Notice Einstein's quote: "There is not the slightest *indication* (not 'possibility') that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable."
He then provides the _requirement_ to finish the problem.
Man didn't think it was purely impossible. Just not with current tech.
Einstein definitely believed we could harness Nuclear Power. His friend literally built a nuclear reactor...
Well, I feel like "indication" refers more towards "proof" or "a hint", so if I'm right, he would've meant "There is not the slightest proof/hint that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".
also excuse me for being 9 months late
@@ducc995 lol, Its ok, im still here, also, that make sense
@@kyoukan91 Einstein also wrote (along with Szilard) the famous letter to Roosevelt encouraging the Manhattan Project in 1939. So while he might not have believed it in 1933, the evidence had convinced him within 6 years.
Any decent scientist changes their minds in the face of new evidence, regardless of their previously held convictions. Einstein was a decent scientist. Want to see someone who was not? Look at Fred Hoyle.
What an incredibly creative mind HG Wells had.
"Haha, how didnt they know it?"
-Me sitting in my coach watching videos.
🤣😂😂
6:10 I thought he gonna say "Hey It's Vsauce!"
Lol thought the same 🤣
Same here!
Hey! Vsauce, Michael here
wow the neutron. I have never heard of that before. really wow. At 42 its not very often I learn something new but i just did
Thank you Veritasium
Great video but at 5:39 I think it's worth noting that the explosion in chernobyl was not the same kind of explosion as in a atomic bomb. Big difference between a reactor going promptly critical and causing a steam explosion versus the fuel in an atomic bomb reaching a critical mass. I think that might be a common misconception about the risks of nuclear power
Also, the series Chernobyl gives a great contribution to this understanding in deeper level. I recommend it.
It's nice to know that there's at least one person on the internet who understands physics!
But in both cases, it is a runaway chain reaction. Just in a bomb this is the desired outcome, in a power reactor - not.
I don't think the concentration of U235 would be sufficient to go critical in any conventional nuclear fission power plant. The problem with Chernobyl is that the explosion, caused by the build-up of steam as you mentioned, also spewed radioactive material all over the region. It would be a "dirty bomb" type problem.
@@ericdew2021 A nuclear reactor even has to go supercritical in order to start working in the first place ("critical" = the chain reaction is self-sustaining), it is just done in a very different way to a nuclear bomb in order to keep the reaction controllable. Not all the material is put in one big lump, but it is spread across a large volume and the neutron energy is influenced using a moderator, their number using control rods, in order to control the power output. Another part in keeping the reaction controllable is relying on delayed neutrons that are not released basically at the moment of a fission happening, but some time later (on the order of seconds) as part of the decay of the fission products. This makes the time constant of changes in the output power long enough so it becomes controllable by technical means.
The problem in Chernobyl was that the reactor went prompt supercritical, thus the power increased exponentially with a time constant that was too short to control (remember, mechanical systems moving large, heavy parts around), until physics (the steam explosion) dispersed the material enough to end the supercritical state.
Here I'am laying on my couch sick on a cold winter day in the Colorado mountains and I'm on a Veritasium binge...... Maybe I need to get sick more often? You make science so awesome! Next video please.
Really hope I remember this one
I always thought that an atom bomb was the splitting or "fission" of a single atom. This video was very eye opening for me.
Scientists: nuclear power is impossible to be harnessed
Nuclear power: I AM INEVITABLE
Comrade Stalin Albert Einstein: And I am wrong
And I am just a random person ..........
I am Chernobyl
I am iron man
Well steam
Hi, just passing by to mention that it is impossible for a nuclear reactor to cause a nuclear explosion. Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion, neither was 3 mile island. The grade of plutonium or uranium used in a reactor is not high enough to sustain that reaction. It is high enough to cause a "meltdown". This is simply where the reaction gets out of control (as you mentioned), but since the quality of the fuel is low all that happens is the temperature of the reaction spikes and literally melts the reactor. This is usually accompanied by a steam explosion (see the two previous examples) as a massive amount of water is converted to steam very quickly and the pressure builds up until the whole thing just explodes. It isn't a nuclear explosion, but it still sends radioactive material all over the place.
Why write this small essay? Well, this is a common misconception and a lot of people are irrationally scared of nuclear power because of it. It doesn't help when media outlets insinuate that this is possible.
technically a nuclear reaction is just a nuclear bomb but slowed to the point where it cant go crazy, if you removed all the control methods and just let the reaction go wild it would basically turn into a nuclear bomb but it would be weaker since a nuclear bomb is supposed to cause damage which means packing a bunch of uranium in one spot to reach peak destruction, a stable nuclear reaction is only meant for creating energy for everyday use, meaning 5 megatons of tnt worth of energy isnt necessary, meaning it would be impossible to create anything as strong because it isnt designed to do that
Nice... I enjoyed that. Well said.
Maybe because of the relationship of energy to density is directly proportional . The kilograms is in the numerator . A small amount of volume can create a large amount of energy .
I swear youtube channels like these should have 100 Million subs
no man, that's no how it works, you get more subs, if you make RUclips more money, they basically recommend it more. So the quality of the content only matters a portion.
@@Figure000 If you have high quality content, more people will watch and continue watching, giving you more subs. No, I don't think the amount of money you make affects how much it is recommended
@@vibaj16 the basics of youtube is, if it keeps someone in the website it will be recomended to others
@@fabio5286 And the basics of what keeps someone on the website is that the appeal of the content to a general audience
@@Jacob-ge1py that right is reserved for pewdiepie
Good to see your not dead
Wut tf
Its just amazing how BRILLIANT those physisist are, and doing it in 1940s just amazing,things we barely imagine with simpliest animations they understood back then, fusion and fision, theory, practical, making of an A and H bombs
True pioneers and remember back then there was no computers or smartphones or internet to collaborate and chat so they all thought independently on their own figuring things out. It's frankly unimaginable as we're getting into abstract theoretical physics.
“Albert. When I came to you with those calculations we thought we might start a chain reaction that would destroy the entire world.”
“I remember it well.”
“I believe we did.”
Bravo vince!
So wait
NEUTRON WAS DISCOVERED AFTEERRRRR Einstein energy mass relation......
I never Expected.....that...
Wow
3min silence for neutron
Einstein's 1921 Nobel Prize was not for special relativity (it was for the photoelectric effect). E=mc2 was considered theoretical, and irrelevant to everyday life.
The neutron was discovered by James Chadwick, a student of Ernest Rutherford, in 1932. Albert Einstein published four groundbreaking scientific papers in 1905, one of which expressed the idea that mass and energy are equivalent.
Oddly enough the thing Einstein proposed, E=mc^2 , is useful for more than just fission discussed here. Even normal chemical reactions like baking soda and vinegar will technically convert mass to energy.
@@ianwiatric2861 it does do what you said but because (we think it's the cause) elections are tangled up in the Nuclear force (specifically the weak component) all sorts of weird things are possible. In this case one of those weird things is a mass being turned into energy.
@@ianwiatric2861 atomic and molecular bonds are "energy" in a way: for example energy stored in the electromagnetic field (autoinduction and stuff). If i'm not mistaken if you break a bond the whole thing actually has more mass becouse you put energy into it, and when it makes bonds it releases energy for most reactions and so it looses mass